Clarification of misconceptions, allegations, criticism, and slander against the Noble Qur'an and its Messenger (ﷺ)

Menu

Is there any prophecy of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad?

Ahmadis believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian was a Prophet and that he was the Mahdi and the promised Messiah.[1] For this claim, they present their evidences and this is what this essay looks at.

Laying the faulty foundation

The premise of this claim is the faulty base that Eisa (عليه سلام) has passed away whereas the reality is opposite to this [*]; not only are there rigorously authentic Hadiths to this effect [*], it has also been mentioned in the Qur’an very clearly that he did not die and will return.

The Ahmadi writer, to which this paper responds to, simply declared all the Hadiths that do not confirm to his view as weak because he states that the Mahdi and Eisa (عليه سلام) waging war on non-believers contradicts the Qur’anic injunction of no compulsion in religion (2:256) and therefore are rejected. Such a claim not only overlooks the overall picture presented by the Hadiths but is also an easy cop-out intended to only focus on what suits the needs.

Moreover, not only is this desired conclusion against the Qur’an itself[2], it also misrepresents the verse (2:256) as well.[3]

Hadiths do not portray the Mahdi and Eisa (عليه سلام) as savages, nor do they portray them as aggressors. In fact, the Hadiths portray them as saviours who would appear after the believers would be under severe oppression. Read more under Series of events here [*]; this provides an overall picture which no one would be able to claim as contradictory to Q.2:256.

Furthermore, the Qur’an should not be interpreted based on whims and desires and we learn from the Qur’an (Q.2:76, 78) that whoever interprets the Qur’an according to his or her own opinion, has erred, even if he/she reaches at the correct conclusion.[4]

The second faulty foundation laid down is that of turning some of Qur’an and Hadiths as metaphorical. This is not only incorrect but also insulting to the Qur’an because:

The Hadiths clarify the Qur’an and claiming that they are also metaphorical would be claiming that there is ambiguity in the clarification [*];

Such a claim makes the Qur’an and Hadiths to be similar to the Bible which has mostly (or only) ambiguous prophecies while the prophecies in the Hadiths are very explicit [*]; and

This claim is arrived at as a result of some misrepresentation of Qur’anic verses and misapplied to the wrong place. For a better understanding, one has to read more about the Mutashabihat [*].

The prophecies of the Prophet (ﷺ) that have come true are all very explicit and one finds no metaphors, figures of speech, or dubious and uncertain elements in them [*]. If one were to argue over things, or technology, that were not non-existent in the times of the Prophet (ﷺ), then one may find some form of removal from explicitness but even those things have the closest alternatives available. For example, Dajjal is said to ride a flying white donkey with very large distance between its ears; this may be referring to an airplane. Further examples can be of the use of the word swords when referring to the weapons in end-times and these may be alternatives to the modern weaponry. Even these non-exact words are due to a necessity and there is no metaphor in the prophecies.

The literal speech of Allah is very eloquent; one need not insert parables and metaphors where none exist. Going away from the apparent reading is something that all crooked groups do; if the apparent does not fit their view, even the overall general view instead of the specifics, then they should abandon it and adopt the correct path.

Some questions asked and their responses

If we look at the overall picture presented in the end times’ Hadiths, we find neither contradictions nor problems. Ignoring that or not giving proper respect to it results in confusion and hence the following questions are asked:

If Jesus (as) were really to supposedly come down from the sky, who wouldn’t believe in him? The purpose behind faith in the unseen (al-Ghayb) becomes purposeless then.

The Qur’an itself states in 4:159 that the entirety of the people of the Book would believe in him before the Day of Judgment [*] and hence, such a question is using logic against the Qur’an. Secondly, no Hadith states that Eisa (عليه سلام) would come down publically in front of the whole world and it would only be a handful of people who would see him and they too would not see him literally coming down from the heavens but would find him in the Masjid. Thirdly, many prophets were provided with miracles by Allah and yet, they rejected them. Fourthly, applying ghayb here, in this way, is incorrect because the Qur’an and the Hadith are clear that after certain signs, every disbeliever would embrace Islam. Would one say that due to such signs the purpose behind faith in the unseen (al-Ghayb) becomes purposeless then? So a thing may be a test while another may be a result and yet another may be a judgment; to call the judgment of Allah a test from Him would be incorrect to do so.

In history, no Prophet has ever ascended heaven or come down after thousands of years, not even Elijah (as) whom the Jews were expecting to herald the Messiah and failed to realize that he came in the spirit of Yahya (John the Baptist) as as (sic) stated by Jesus (as) in the Bible.

If one were to make a list of things no prophet has ever done, then so many events of the past would need to be rejected. No prophet has ever brought the dead back to life (by the will and permission of Allah) and hence, such miracles would need to be rejected, going by this logic.

Using the Bible is something that has its conditions and one essential condition is that it should not contradict the Qur’an. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Relate traditions from the children of Isra’il; there is no harm. Those events that do not contradict Islamic narratives may be narrated and the Prophet (ﷺ) also said: Do not believe the people of the Scripture or disbelieve them. Some narrations that are usually dismissed from the Bible due to their apparent absurdity may be true events put in there by the scribes in an ineloquent manner or in a manner that gives vibes of absurdity while some events may look to be beautiful but may be lies inserted in the Book by mischief makers. Hence, when the believers listen to these, they are neither to believe nor disbelieve and may narrate to others if they do not contradict Islam. If it sounds confusing then think about it this way: A person doesn’t know whether Robin Hood was real or just a legend and decides to read books about him. There would be nothing wrong about it and he would be reading the book for educational entertainment.

What we find in the Bible about Yahya (عليه سلام) has no basis in Islam and nothing binds us to believe or accept it and it, contracts what the tafaseer state [*]. When one takes the Bible as an important base for his beliefs, then the outcome will most certainly be crooked. Instead of taking the Bible as the last resort, using it as an important clarifier ends up making one reject the Prophet (ﷺ) over the lying scribes we find in Jeremiah 8:8.

The Qur’ān in Sūrah al-Maryam, Verse 58, it says Allāh raised the Prophet Idrīs (as) up using the word rafa’a رفع which is the same word used by Allāh for Jesus (as) in the Qur’ān yet no Muslim scholar believes Idrīs (as) physically ascended to heaven, nor do they believe he will come down from the sky. The Bible purports the same idea.

Rafaa means to raise up. It could be a physical raising up (Q.55:7) or it could be the raising of the status (Q.19:57). However, when the raising of the status or rank is concerned, it is mentioned very clearly. In Q.19:57, when the raising is mentioned, status is explicitly mentioned. In short, Rafa’a means to raise up physically unless otherwise stated. When the raising is of the status, we find a clear mention of it with a follow-up word. However, in the case of Prophet Eisa (عليه السلام), we see nothing like this and therefore we can conclude that he was raised physically to the heavens [*]. This is also in agreement with entire Qur’an and the entire Hadith corpus.

Why is Promised Messiah Called ‘Īsa ibn Maryam?

The short and simple answer is that this is the name of Eisa (عليه السلام) and he is the son of Maryam (عليه السلام) and born without a father which is why he is called by his real name Eisa b. Maryam (عليه السلام).

There are several Hadiths on Eisa (عليه السلام) descending (coming down from above) and none of these mention about him being born. Moreover, the authentic Hadiths state that he would descend in Shaam and kill the Dajjal at the gate of Ludd [*][*][*][*][*]. We find no reason to believe that he would not be the real Eisa, the son of the real Maryam. Use of any whacky, crazy, and pseudo spiritualism is only deceptive. Rejecting the apparent text of the Qur’an and Hadiths and going to pseudo spirituality and fabricated mysticism is only reliance of fabricated evidence and if one chooses to base his religion on this and risk his after-life, then so be it.

Sign of the eclipses

The following narration is quoted and linked with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani:

Surely for our Mahdī there are two signs. These have not happened since the creation of the heavens and the earth. The eclipse of the moon in the first night [out of the possible nights for an eclipse] in the month of Ramadhān, and the eclipse of the sun in the halfway point of that [i.e. the middle day of the possible days of a solar eclipse in Ramadhān]. And these signs have not occurred since the creation of the heavens and the earth.

[Sunan al-Dārqutnī, Vol. II, Bāb Siffat Salāt al-Khusūf wa al-Kusūf wa Hayta’humā [Chapter: Qualities of the Prayer at the Eclipses of the Sun and Moon, and other matters concerning these two], Kitāb al-’Īdayn [Book of the Two ‘Īd Festivals], Hadīth #10 of the Chapter, and #1771 of the Volume]

This is a general thing that has happened not just in the past (in 1980s) but will also occur in the future [*]. If the sign was something specific, like the drying up of the Euphrates River for example, then the matter would have been different. Moreover, the source of the Hadith i.e. al-Daraqutni himself states that two of the narrators in the Hadith (‘Amr and Jabir) are unreliable in the same book, vol. II, pg. 65. If we look at more scholars about these narrators, we do not find kind words.[5]

State of the Muslim world

The Muslim world has been in decline since the past few centuries and minor signs have continued to occur since long back; however, we haven’t witnessed a major sign yet. Hence, if someone had come 300 years ago and made the claim of being the Mahdi or the Messiah due to the state of the sad Muslim world, then his claim would be as strong as that of Mirza Qadiani i.e. it would also not have a strong ground to stand on. Even if someone comes out right now and claims to be the Mahdi or the Messiah, he would also not be entertained unless the signs have occurred and the signs are explicitly stated in Hadiths [*].

If one were to look at the state of the world, he would find that it is much worse than what it was a century ago. This worsening, in fact, only disproves the claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani.

Persian reformer of Islam

This has nothing to do with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani and Ahmadis should make up their mind whether to take him as a Persian or as a descendant of the Prophet (ﷺ); they cannot have it both ways. A discussion of the Hadith can be found here [*].

Black flags of Khurasan

The black flags of Khurasan are to be understood the same way as the state of the Muslim world above. Just because one takes on the black colour for their flag does not mean that it is the one mentioned in the Hadiths. All the signs and qualities of the flag, and the army along with it, need to be considered as well. When one ignores all of them, only then he is able to arrive at some sort of distorted conclusion. Details on the black flags may be read here [*][*] [Ctrl+F Black in these links].

Prophetic lineage

Ahmadis argue that due to contradictory reports on the lineage of the Mahdi, it can be deduced that the Prophet (ﷺ) rather was meaning to say that the Mahdi shall follow his Sunnah therefore be counted as one of his Ahl-ul-Bayt. This is a very strange way of reconciling the contradictory narrations; secondly, the narrations that mention an Abbasi lineage are weak and not reliable. Ahmadis simply love to brush aside any Hadith that contradicts their view as weak; it would have been better if they stuck to a proper methodology and analyzed Hadiths based on that merit and if they had done so, they would have also learned that the contradictory Hadiths are weak and not the ones that do not suit the whims and desires.

Ibn al-Qayyim states in al-Manar al-Muneef (p. 143) that the descent of the Mahdi from Hassan (رضي الله عنه) has great wisdom worth reflecting. He states that in order to put an end to the unfortunate civil war, Hassan (رضي الله عنه) gave up his right to caliphate. Allah has given the honour of leadership to a man from his progeny who fills the earth with justice. This is in accordance with the statement of the Prophet (ﷺ): Whoever leaves something for the sake of Allah, Allah shall compensate him a better one for that. The caliphate upon the way of Prophet-hood lasted for 30 years and ended with Hassan (رضي الله عنه) who ruled for about six months before letting it go for the sake of Allah. It will return to someone from his progeny (the Mahdi).

To sum it up and to reiterate: Caliphate upon the way of the Prophet-hood ended with Hassan (رضي الله عنه) and it will return with his descendant (the Mahdi).

The lineage is from the father in Islam [*]; in fact, this is the accepted norm in all other cultures as well.

Eisa (عليه السلام) and the Messiah are the same persons

The Prophet (ﷺ) was very explicit when he said that Eisa (عليه السلام) is the Messiah who is to return:

Today I saw myself in a dream near the Ka`ba. I saw a whitish brown man, the handsomest of all brown men you might ever see. He had the most beautiful Limma (hair hanging down to the earlobes) you might ever see. He had combed it and it was dripping water; and he was performing the Tawaf around the Ka`ba leaning on two men or on the shoulders of two men. l asked, “Who is this?” It was said. “Messiah, the son of Maryam.” Suddenly I saw a curly-haired man, blind in the right eye which looked like a protruding out grape. I asked, “Who is this?” It was said, “He is Masiah Ad-Dajjal. [Sahih al-Bukhari 5902]

What will be your state when the son of Mary descends amongst you and there will be an Imam amongst you? [Sahih Muslim 155 d]

The Imam to be amongst the believers would be the Mahdi:

Narrated by al-Haarith b. Abi Usaamah in his Musnad that Jaabir (r) said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “‘Eisa b. Maryam will come down and their leader the Mahdi will say to him: ‘Come and lead us in prayer.’ But he will say: ‘No, one of them should lead the others in prayer, as a sign of honour from Allah to this Ummah.’

Ibn al-Qayyim said in al-Manaar al-Muneef (1/147): its isnaad is jayyid. The Hadith is narrated with a mawsool isnaad in Saheeh Muslim, without naming their leader. Muslim’s report (225) says: “… ‘And ‘Eisa b. Maryam will come down and their leader will say to him: ‘Come and lead us in prayer.’ But he will say: ‘No, one of them should lead the others in prayer, as a sign of honour from Allah to this Ummah.’”

Moreover, the great scholar Ibn Sireen also double confirms this fact:

The Mahdi is from this Ummah and he is the one who leads Eisa b. Maryam. [Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba 36945]

The Qur’an repeatedly calls the son of Maryam (i.e. Eisa (عليه السلام)) as the Messiah [*] and every piece of evidence shows that the Messiah and Eisa the son of Maryam (عليه السلام) are one and the same person.

The following is claimed:

It should be kept in mind though that any hadith that mentions the “Mahdi” is weak. Sahih Bukhari and Muslim don’t even mention the term Mahdi but only mention the coming of the Masih.

This is either gross injustice done to the texts or it shows lack of basic Hadith knowledge. Perhaps an easy brush under the carpet as weak approach leads to such blunders. The Hadiths of the Mahdi are authentic and every Hadith that speaks of the Mahdi and the Messiah being one and the same is weak [*]. Moreover, the Mahdi is not only hinted at in the Qur’an but also mentioned in the two Sahih books [*].

Another evidence that the Ahmadis provide is the colour differences in the descriptions of Eisa (عليه السلام) in two different Hadiths. One describes him as of rosy complexion while another describes him with a brown complexion. There is no contradiction and the different descriptions are of the same person [*]. Moreover, we find that Hadiths describe Musa (عليه السلام) with two different descriptions as well:

On the night of my Ascension to Heaven, I saw (the prophet) Moses who was a thin person with lank hair, looking like one of the men of the tribe of Shanua. [Sahih al-Bukhari 3394]

One Hadith describes him as tall and strong as if from the people of Az-Zutt while another describes him as tall and thin as if from the tribe of Shanua. In both narrations, we find not just different descriptions but also different groups of people. The Shanua are a Yemeni tribe while the Jatts are known as Zutt to the Arabs.[6]

Can one argue that there are two Musa and one is yet to come? No. There are a few possible explanations for the difference in appearance described; it could be that in one vision he saw Musa (عليه السلام) in an older age and in the night journey, he saw him as a younger man and therefore slim. Secondly, it could be that he is both slim and muscular.

The differences in the descriptions of Eisa (عليه السلام) has already been addressed in the link [*]; however, even for the sake of argument, if we assume that there are two varying descriptions, we still do not find Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani in there. If we observe the Hadiths further we see that the ruddy color is seen at Kaaba in the dream and it is likely that he must be under the sun when his color appeared to be ruddy. Also, in the night journey, Eisa (عليه السلام) was in heaven where he would not be as one is on earth (toiling under the sun etc.). When he would return, he would participate in Jihad and perform Hajj. After such a struggle, it is likely that his white color would experience tanning as seen in the vision by the Prophet (ﷺ).

If we assume the same Hadith authentication standards as the Ahmadis (i.e. no standard), we would reach at a conclusion not liked by them. Consider the following Hadith:

There would be no creation (creating more trouble) than the Dajjal right from the creation of Adam to the Last Hour and I am going to tell you a thing which no Prophet told his people. He would have a wheatish colour, his left eye would be blind, his eye would have a skin covering and he would cure a person suffering from leprosy and say: ‘I am your Lord’. Whoever says: ‘My Lord is Allah’ would be safe from the trial and whoever says: ‘You are my Lord’ would have fallen in the trial. He will stay among you for as long as Allah wills. Then Eisa will descend and testify to the Prophet Muhammad and follow his Shariah and be a rightly guided ruler and judge and it would be him who would kill Dajjal. [Mu’jam al-Kabeer of Tabarani 4580]

The above Hadith is of weak authenticity but if we brush aside all Hadith rules and simply pick and choose based on whims and desires, we would reach the conclusion that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani is Dajjal. However, we still reach this conclusion from authentic Hadiths.

Lastly, if we analyze the words of the Hadith, we see that the brown color is praised. This is because earning through lawful means is much appreciated in Islam and it is the struggle of Eisa (عليه السلام) that is appreciated in the form of a tanned color.

It must be remembered that we are only assuming that the premise of the Ahmadis is true for the sake of argument whereas it is far from the truth.

Mahdi and Messiah are titles of two different individuals

As stated earlier, the Hadiths that mention that the Mahdi and Eisa (عليه السلام) are the same person are weak. In fact, even Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani admitted to this fact:

“And as to Ahadith about the arrival of Mahdi you know they are all Da’if and problematic contradicting one another so much so that in one narration in Ibn Majah and other books says, ‘There is no Mahdi except ‘Eisa, so how can one rest is his case on such kind of narrations with so much difference and contradictions, weakness and criticism on their narrators, as is not hidden from the scholars of Hadith?” [Humamtul Bushra pp.148-149 included in Rohani Khazain vol.7 pp.314-315]. Read more here.

Another criticism raised against the traditional Islamic view of the Mahdi and Eisa (عليه السلام) is that the Hadiths mention both of them as caliphs whereas there cannot be more than one Khalifah at a time. Such confusion arises because of weakening any Hadith that goes against ones whims and desires and neglecting the overall Hadith base. Hadiths mention that the Mahdi would rule for seven or nine years. Near the end of his tenure, Dajjal would appear and the Mahdi would be alive then. Near the end of the time of Dajjal, Eisa (عليه السلام) would descend from the heavens and kill the Dajjal. Eisa (عليه السلام) would not lead the prayer and allow the Mahdi to do so. After the Mahdi passes away, Eisa (عليه السلام) would rule as the Khalifah. There is no contradiction in any sequence; in fact, Hadiths even mention that after Eisa (عليه السلام) there would be some caliphs and they have also been mentioned in Hadiths [*].

Some statements from scholars are provided which state that the Mahdi is Eisa (عليه السلام) and Ibn Kathir explains that the Mahdi (i.e. the guided one) is also Eisa (عليه السلام) in the sense that Eisa (عليه السلام) is a guided person.

“Both of them do not conflict each other with contemplation. But, the meaning of that is that al-Mahdī in the true sense is Eisa son of Maryam”. [Al-Bidāyah Wa an-Nihāyah 19/67]

The real guided one in description is indeed Eisa (عليه السلام) but the person known as the Mahdi is other than him.

Village of Kadi’ah

The following narration is quoted:

يخرج المهدي من قرية يقال لها لها كدعة

“The Mahdi will appear in a village called Kadi’ah.” (Jawāhir al-Asrār, pg. 55)

Isn’t it simply sad that the great Hadith books like Bukhari and Muslim among others are brushed aside as weak when they refute the Ahmadi positions but a Baha’i book is considered an authority? Ahmadis never perform an isnad analysis and for this, do not even provide one to begin with. Throwing in this narration is nothing but dishonesty and such fabricated narrations should not be utilised. If your religion is based on fabrications, then I invite you to Islam.

Descent of the Messiah

A rather funny claim is made about the descent of Eisa (عليه السلام) near a white minaret to the east of Damascus. The following is stated:

No such minaret existed in Damascus when the Prophet (sa) made this prediction.

After making such a ridiculous statement, the Ahmadi author goes on to argue that a white minaret exists in Qadian. On one hand he states that no white minaret existed during the time of the Prophet (ﷺ) in Damascus and on the other hand finds a white minaret in Qadian during the time of Mirza Qadiani which also did not exist during the time of the Prophet (ﷺ).

Ahmadis argue that descend (nuzul) never means “to come down from the sky”. The reality is, however, far from this. According to the Qur’an, nuzul means to physically descend from above. Manna and Salwa descended from above, animals are said to be descended from above. Peace on the Prophet (ﷺ) and the message brought by the Prophet (ﷺ) were also sent by Allah from above. Just like iron came physically from above (from outer space as per modern science), Prophet Eisa (عليه السلام) would also come physically from the heavens to earth. This is not just as per the Qur’an and Hadiths but also affirmed by the dictionary. However, if one changes the methodology and goes to dictionary first, chooses one of the many meanings, and then goes to Qur’an and Hadith to interpret them accordingly, he would be blundering significantly.

Similarities with Muhammadan and Mosaic Messiahs

A rather strange comparison is made by Ahmadis where it is claimed that Eisa (عليه السلام) came 1,400 years after Musa (عليه السلام) and Mirza Qadiani also came after around the same time. I would love to know how the authenticity of the date of Musa (عليه السلام) has been determined by Ahmadis. The sources we have help us determine the period of rule of Ramesses II who is the foremost contender to be the Pharaoh during the times of Musa (عليه السلام) [*].Ramesses II died in 1213 BC and hence, the difference between Musa (عليه السلام) and Eisa (عليه السلام) is at least 1173 years and we find that the numbers are odd for Mirza Qadiani.

There is a book known as theAssumption of Moses which mentions what appears to be a broken record of the people of the cave as well as the coming of the Prophet 250 times after Musa (عليه السلام) i.e. 1,750 years later. This piece of evidence further confirms that Musa (عليه السلام) lived around 1,180 years prior to Eisa (عليه السلام). The Assumption of Moses may be read here [*] and details on the prophecy may be read here [*].[7]

Coming of Dajjal

A specially dedicated book is underway for this topic and will be linked here once completed. For other signs such as the Yajuj and Majuj, read this detailed piece [*] and read the chronology of the end times prophecies here [*].

General prophecies

Some prophecies have been presented which have been grossly misrepresented such as prophecies in Surah Takwir (travel by camel will cease, invention of internet), invention of railways, obstacles in Hajj, and others. However, even if they are accepted as pushed forward by the Ahmadis, it does not prove the truthfulness of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani. Minor signs such as loss of morals, increase in crimes and immorality, indecency etc. have continued to take place from centuries back and can be used by anyone to make a claim. What we require is a specific major sign to even entertain the idea that Mirza Qadiani was truthful.

Yellow Robes Prophecy

It is claimed that Islam forbids yellow clothing for men while Hadiths describe Eisa (عليه السلام) descending wearing yellow clothes. Some deductions are made from this but we shall look at those after discussing the Hadiths regarding clothing:

It would be at this very time that Allah would send Eisa, son of Maryam, and he will descend wearing two mahrood garments (lightly dyed with saffron i.e. off-white colour) and placing his hands on the wings of two Angels. [Sahih Muslim 2937 a]

The colour described is mahrood (off-white) and not asfar (yellow). These words are important to remember.

Dying clothes in saffron is not what is forbidden but the colour that results from it. Moreover, to call this colour yellow would be incorrect. Below are some of the different colours that result from saffron, taken from here:

If you want to translate any of this as yellow, then go ahead but this must be done with precaution, disclaimers, and detailed explanations. Let’s discuss the details:

It is permitted for men to wear yellow clothing. [Haskafi, al-Durr al-Mukhtar; Ibn `Abidin, Radd al-Muhtar; Shurunbulali, Hashiyat Durar] Many Hanafi works mention, however, that is it improper for men to wear yellow, sulphur, or saffron red clothing.

This dislikedness mentioned in classical texts for these colors returns to religious or cultural connotations they had–of imitation of other religions’ distinctive religious dress, or of colors considered effeminate for men to wear. Shaykh Ashraf Muneeb–a Hanafi faqih based in Jordan–confirmed this understanding, mentioning that such colors had such clear connotations in previous times.

There would, thus, be dislikedness in wearing such colors for men if and when they entail imitation of distinctly feminine appearance, or when they are from the distinguishing signs of other faiths’ religious dress. [Source]

The Prophet (ﷺ) disallowed wearing mafdam and mafdam is something that is filled with red safflower dye. Read more under Red here [*]. The saffron colour that results in similitude to the traditional dress of other religions is what is forbidden. Pictures taken from here [*][*][*].

Having said this, it must be stated that even wearing read is not outright forbidden and it is reported that the Prophet (ﷺ) wore red occasionally [*]. It is permissible to wear red clothes if the red is combined with another colour; it is not permissible to wear plain red, because the Prophet (ﷺ) forbade doing so [*].

It must be noted that Romans are called Bani al-Asfar (descendants of yellow) and this may either be because of how the Arabs saw their colour or perhaps because of their blonde hair. During the time of the Prophet (ﷺ), they were disbelievers; however, there are many Muslims from the Europeans and North Americans (the West). If someone says that the disbelievers are called Bani al-Asfar (children of the yellow) and hence, yellow colour is forbidden, then they would be displaying gross incompetence and significant ignorance of history.

What we learn is the following:

Eisa (عليه السلام) would descend wearing two piece off-white clothes

Dying clothes with saffron is not forbidden unless it results in the colour to resemble that of other religions

Wearing red is not outright forbidden but conditionally so

There is no explicit instruction forbidding wearing yellow and what is forbidden is saffron dyed colour that resembles the clothes of disbelievers.

Messiah from Among the Muslims

Two narrations are quoted which involve a bit of deceit. If it is a genuine misunderstanding on the part of Ahmadis, then I apologize for that. The problem with the quotation is detailed below. What is quoted is as follows:

كيف أنتم إذا نزل ابن مريم فيكم و إمامكم

“How will you be when the Son of Mary will appear among you and is your Imām (leader) from amongst you.” (Sahīh Bukhārī, Kitāb al-Anbiyā’ – Book of the Prophets, Ch. 49, Hadith #3449)

The narration is mistranslated and the correct translation is as follows:

What will be your state when the son of Maryam descends amongst you and there will be an Imam amongst you?

The correct translation shows that when Eisa (عليه السلام) descends, there would be an Imam amongst the Muslims and we have seen an authentic narration presented above that this Imam would be the Mahdi. We learn that Eisa (عليه السلام) and the Mahdi would be two separate persons.

The other narration has also been mistranslated to push forward an agenda:

And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, “O children of Israel, indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you confirming what came before me of the Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad.” But when he came to them with clear evidences, they said, “This is obvious magic.” [Q.61:6]

What is argued from this verse is that for Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) to come after Eisa (عليه السلام), Eisa (عليه السلام) would have to have been dead. If a person says this: after I go away, he will come – how and why would one assume that death is necessary here? Eisa (عليه السلام) went away from this world and that is when the Prophet (ﷺ) came. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: I am the (result of the) invocation made to Allah from my father Ibrahim and the good news `Isa delivered. Much more can be read here [*].

We can easily conclude that the Ahmad prophesied by Eisa (عليه السلام) was none other than the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ).

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Eisa) the son of Maryam will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pig and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non-Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it.” Abu Huraira added “If you wish, you can recite (this verse of the Holy Book): — ‘And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) but must believe in him (i.e. Eisa as an Apostle of Allah and a human being) before his death. And on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them.” (4.159) [Sahih al-Bukhari 3448]

Pondering over the emphasized part leads us to conclude that Eisa (عليه السلام) will rule mankind i.e. the entire planet and during his time, there would be world peace (after the Yajuj and Majuj are done with) so much so that there would be no one to accept charities. One does not require any research to conclude that nothing of this sort happened during or after the time of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani.

The following narration from Musnad of Imam Ahmad is said to contradict the Islamic position and the Ahmadi position is pushed forward based on it:

The overall corpus of Hadiths describes the Mahdi and Eisa (عليه السلام) as two separate people and when Eisa (عليه السلام) is described as mahdi here, it is a quality and not the title i.e. he would be a rightly guided Imam because the word mahdi has also been used for the rightly guided caliphs.[8] Anyone who knows Arabic can see that this is a sifat and not a laqab.

The Hadith mentions some further qualities and actions of Eisa (عليه السلام) as follows:

Breaking the cross: Scholars differ over what this may actually mean with some stating that there may be a giant cross which Eisa (عليه السلام) would break when he returns. The scholars are, however, in agreement that Christianity would end because every Christian would embrace Eisa (عليه السلام). Whichever interpretation we go with, the bottom line is that it disproves the claim of Mirza Qadiani because Christianity is well thriving even in our times; in fact, Christianity has witnessed a rapid bounce back in recent times where pretty much every contending party in European and North American countries are the far right. Even if these extreme anti-Islamic Christians are not in power in most European countries, they are a very close second and are growing by the day. Whether one brushes them aside as white supremacists or Neo-Nazis, the fact is that they carry Christianity with them and these are the kind of people prophesied by the Prophet (ﷺ) to be confronted by the Muslims in the great battle (also known as Armageddon) [*]. The current world events are moving in the direction prophesied by Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) and disprove the claim of Mirza Qadiani.

Killing the pig: This is also a matter over which there are a number of possibilities. Eisa (عليه السلام) would kill the Dajjal (anti-Christ) and killing the pig (singular) may be referring to that or it may be referring to something else. Allah knows.

No one will take charities: Ahmadis argue that no one will take wealth means that people would reject his books (which are akin to wealth). This is wrong for many reasons. The Muslims have studied the Ahmadi book in great detail [*][*] and so they took the wealth and rejected it as it turned out to be other than that. Moreover, another Hadith of the Prophet (ﷺ) explicitly states that this wealth would be charity turned down by the people because they would not be in need of it [*].[9]

Conclusion

After looking into Hadiths with much dedication and focus, I could only find two sets of Hadiths that prophesy of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani where one is very direct while the other is strongly implied; however, it is much more convincing than anything presented by the Ahmadis and these are as follows:

The Hour will not be established till two big groups fight each other whereupon there will be a great number of casualties on both sides and they will be following one and the same religious doctrine, till about thirty Dajjals (liars) appear, and each one of them will claim that he is Allah’s Messenger. [Sahih al-Bukhari 7121]

“The Hour shall not be established until nearly thirty imposters, Dajjal appear, each of them claiming that he is the Messenger of Allah.” [Jami` at-Tirmizi 2218]

The Prophet (ﷺ) did not specify an exact number and said that around 30 false prophets would appear. Whether these 30 are from within the Muslim community or in totality, we are not sure. There are other narrations which give a much higher figure than about 30 and hence we learn that limiting oneself to these numbers would not be wise because the Prophet (ﷺ) may have spoken of one type of liars in one Hadith and another type in another. We see this around us as well where some claim to be the return of Jesus while some claim to be Mahdi. Do we take both in the same category and count till the number reaches around 30? No. The Hadiths mention liars and they could be more than just these two categories, and there are as we see around us – the types of false prophets found are 1) claimants of God reincarnate, 2) claimants of the return of Jesus, 3) claimants of being the Mahdi, 4) claimants of being new prophets on their own, 5) claimants of being prophets of the devil, 6) ambassadors of aliens whom they consider the Creator of the human race and so on. Therefore, what we learn is the following:

The number of 30 should not be taken as a fix rule

The other Hadiths that state a higher number do not contradict the Hadith of about 30

All Hadiths may be speaking of different categories

One must not count 29 false prophets in history and wait for the 30th one to be The Dajjal

The second category of Hadiths that speak of Mirza Qadiani is as follows:

When Dajjal looks at him (Eisa), he will start to melt as salt melts in water. [Sunan Ibn Majah 4077]

Melting of a human being may sound difficult to understand and one may think of Dajjal as a Jinn or any other form of non-human – it may either be a literal melting of his body or it may refer to the kind of melting experienced by the min-Dajjal, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani. This melting was also very literal and Dajjal may start to melt in a similar way before he is finally killed by Eisa (عليه السلام).

One is not to force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam. – Ibn Kathir (رحمه الله).

[4] Following are Q.2:76 and Q.2:78 along with somewhat detailed commentaries:

(76) And when they meet those who believe, they say, “We have believed”; but when they are alone with one another, they say, “Do you talk to them about what Allah has revealed to you so they can argue with you about it before your Lord?” Then will you not reason?

(76) The Jews would discuss the Torah, of whatever they had, with the believers. We have seen before that they had a habit of twisting words to make it something else (2:59); it could very well be the case that they did the same by applying some sort of twisted logic such as that they believe Islam is truth (but would not follow it) or that the Prophet (ﷺ) is a Messenger (but only for Arabs) and hence their belief was only from the tongue without action.

Another thing we learn is that there was no Bible in Arabic and the source of Arabs learning it were the Jews. Moreover, even the Hebrew Bible was not very widespread and not every Jew had a copy; only the learned elders would have a copy of the scripture and other Jews would learn about things in it from their leaders/elders. This is because there were some Arabs who knew Hebrew yet did not know about their faith more than what the Jews orally told them. The Qur’an confirms this in other instances as well (2:78, 5:41, 9:31 etc.). A small number of total Bible copies (perhaps a few dozen at most) to be changed later on is not something hard to believe and does not require one to believe in a mega conspiracy no one knew about. Theirs was a distorted view of God and they believed that the truth of Islam required approval from Torah and if there is none there, then Islam and Muslims would have no proof. This could be due to the fact that the scripture given to them was termed the distinction (Qur’an 2:53) and hence they felt the need to alter the distinction/deciding factor. This is a very modern lawyer-like approach of twisting around; it is also being foolishly over-literal where it is not required and not appropriate. This approach of strictly adhering to the letter of the law instead of the spirit is condemned by the Qur’an.

Assuming that Allah (ﷻ) is bound by such laws is thinking low of Allah (ﷻ) and is a blasphemy; changing the criteria and assuming Allah (ﷻ) has to judge by that, no matter what, is actually fooling oneself only.

Their hiding the truth was an unorganized crime and they were confused as to how to approach Islam and Muslims and how to get away with disbelieving in it. This unorganized approach led to contradictory reactions from them where some of them shared their scriptural details while some ordered to keep it hidden. We learn here that engaging others in dialogue brings out a lot of benefits and such an act is encouraged and recommended but only for those with knowledge; they did not have the truth with them and ended up contradicting themselves; if we speak without knowledge, we would end up in a similar situation even though we have the truth. If anyone feels left out of reward by not speaking due to ignorance and is tempted to speak to gain reward, then they must remember that the sin would be greater than the reward and even if they reach at the correct conclusion, they have erred. Silence in such a case would also be rewarded (إنشاءالله). Allah (ﷻ) knows best.

(78) And among them are unlettered ones who do not know the Scripture except in wishful thinking, but they are only assuming.

(78) There were those who did not know the Book and their source of knowledge was lies; they either made things up as they went along or learned, whatever they knew, from those who had knowledge among them. This is the case with many people; they assume that what they think is true has to be true and what one thinks to be true is based on their environment, society, and culture. What we learn is that revelation is superior to culture and cannot be subservient to it. If revelation and culture clash with each other, following the culture is akin to being an illiterate. The importance of culture where there is no clash is a different subject. We have already learned in 2:76 and learn here as well that speaking without knowledge is a sin and even if a person reaches at the correct conclusion from such guesswork, he/she has erred. It is important to understand that such people do not consider their approach to be guesswork; it is because their culture is so ingrained in them that they genuinely believe what they believe is the truth. In such situations, one should perform a self-check: 1) Do I have reference for this claim? 2) Have I heard or read it from a reliable scholar? If you believe something is like the way you think but it clashes with these two points (plus more), then refrain from speaking. If you deduce something based on some Usul, then that also has to come through criteria; there is no free criteria to create Usul by self; it is the revelation of Allah (ﷻ) and one must be fearful in lying and speaking without knowledge.

Amar b. Shamir: A Shia from Kufa. Yahya (Ibn Ma’een) says: (He is) a non-entity. Juzjaani says: A misguided impostor. Ibn Hibbaan says: This man is a Shia who insults the Sahaba, and fabricates narrations in the name of authentic Ulema. Imam Bukhari says: His narrations are rejected. Yahya says: His narrations should not be recorded. Suleimani says: This Amar used to fabricate narrations for the Shias. Imam Nasaai says: His narrations have been discarded.

Ibn Hajr, in Lisan al-Meezan, states:

Ibn abi Hatim states: I asked my father about him (‘Amar b. Shamir), and he replied: His Hadiths are totally rejected, a weak narrator, a person one should never get involved with. The Muhaditheen have forsaken him. Al-Haakim states: He has many fabrications narrated from Jabir and no-one else besides him narrate these blatant fabrications from Jabir.

[6] In The Great Arab Conquests by Hugh Kennedy, pg. 307, we find the following:

Some of the Zutt were already settled in Iraq before the coming of Islam. Many more seem to have arrived as a result of the Muslim involvement in their native lands in Indus valley. Soon the Umayyad Caliphs moved some of them to the hot plains around Antioch in northern Syria.

[7] Some people raise some questions against the Assumption of Moses arguing that the language used is that of end times and hence cannot refer to the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ). What is important to know is that this book has not properly survived and may also have undergone corruption and distortion. However, what is important is that the prophecy speaks of someone to come after 1,750 years and the only person who came exactly 1,750 years after him was our Prophet (ﷺ). Keeping this in mind, all the apocalyptic events mentioned such as the sun and moon dying can be interpreted differently; alternatively, the earlier part describes the end of the world and then this particular verse (of 1,750 years) speaks of the Prophet (ﷺ). This number is not a coincidence nor is it meaningless.

[8] Some of the Hadiths mentioning some Sahaba as mahdi are as follows:

‘Awf bin Malik Al-Ashja’i said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘O ‘Awf, remember six things (that will occur) before the Hour comes, one of which is my death.’ I was very shocked and saddened at that. He said: ‘Count that as the first. Then (will come) the conquest of Baitul-Maqdis (Jerusalem); then a disease which will appear among you and cause you and your offspring to die as martyrs and will purify your deeds; then there will be (much) wealth among you, so that if a man were to be given one hundred Dinar he would still be dissatisfied; and there will be tribulation among you that will not leave any Muslim house untouched; then there will be a treaty between you and the Romans, then they will betray you and march against you with eighty banners, under each of which will be twelve thousand (troops).’” [Sunan Ibn Majah 4042]

Abu Nadra reported: “We were in the company of Jabir b. ‘Abdullah that he said it may happen that the people of Iraq may not send their qafiz and dirhams (their measures of food stuff and their money). We said: Who would be responsible for it? He said: The non-Arabs would prevent them. He again said: There is the possibility that the people of Syria may not send their dinars and mudds. We said: Who would be responsible for it? He said this prevention would be made by the Romans. He (Jabir b. Abdullah) kept quiet for a while and then reported Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) having said there would be a caliph in the last (period) of my Ummah who would freely give handfuls of wealth to the people without counting it. I said to Abu Nadra and Abu al-‘Ala: Do you mean ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-Aziz? They said: No (he would be the Mahdi). [Sahih Muslim 2913 a]